Jdogno7

Wotcher!
Hello, Jdogno7, and welcome to the Harry Potter Wiki (HPW). Thank you for your edit to the Fleur Delacour page. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay.

Before editing, be sure to read the wiki's policies. Please sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to automatically produce your name and the current date. Be sure to verify your e-mail address in your preferences. Before attempting any major article rewrites please read the layout guide. If you have any questions, check out the policy and help pages (see here for editing help), add a question to the Community portal, view the forum or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Contents

Fleur Delacour

Please stop disrupting this article. Your constant removal of verified information is against our policies. If you have a legitimate reason for the removal of this information, please take it to the talk page for discussion, and familiarise yourself with canon policy. If you persist in further removals on the basis that it is a film plot point rather than a book one, you will be blocked from editing as per our policies. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:Voldemort's name

Hello. Regarding Voldemort's name, we can absolutely be sure his name was "Tom" and not "Thomas" as you have added to the article. On chapter 13 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Mrs. Cole gives us an account of Merope Gaunt's arrival at the orphanage when Tom was born.

"I remember she said to me, 'I hope he looks like his papa,' and I won't lie, she was right to hope it, because she was no beauty — and then she told me he was to be named Tom, for his father, and Marvolo, for her father — yes, I know, funny name, isn't it? We wondered whether she came from a circus — and she said the boy's surname was to be Riddle."

Merope did not say he was to be named "Thomas", she said "Tom, for his father". This pretty much clears it that Voldemort's name is Tom, not Thomas. Besides, the whole chapter seems to make a point that Tom is the actual boy's name: Dumbledore refers to him as "Tom Riddle" when stating his purpose there to Mrs. Cole (highly unlikely he would refer to the boy by a nickname; further backed up by the fact that his name is known to Dumbledore via the Magical Quill, which writes the Hogwarts students' names) and the fact that Riddle is visibly annoyed that his name is a common one like "Tom". Surely he would prefer people to call him "Thomas" if that was his name. But no mention of that is made in the chapter. Besides, as Dumbledore himself puts it, later that same chapter:

"Firstly, I hope you noticed Riddle's reaction when I mentioned that another shared his first name, 'Tom'? There he showed his contempt for anything that tied him to other people, anything that made him ordinary. Even then, he wished to be different, separate, notorious. He shed his name, as you know, within a few short years of that conversation and created the mask of 'Lord Voldemort' behind which he has been hidden for so long."

Edit war

Please stop. You have persistently engaged in edit warring over the Tom Riddle page, after your edits have been repeatedly proven to go against all available canonical evidence. If you continue with this counter-productive behaviour you will be subject to a cool-down block lasting a few days. Thank you. Seth Cooperowl post! 12:10, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

"Is there anything that is INCONTREVERTIBLE, UNCONTRADICTABLE or ABSOLUTE that Tom isn't his full name but a nickname and Thomas is his full birth first name?" I would think that the fact that the author of the series says so would be enough absolute evidence of that.

At the risk of repeating myself, Mrs. Cole says in chapter 13 of Half-Blood Prince that "he was to be named Tom, for his father". Period. He was not to be named Thomas. Even if his father was Thomas (which wasn't the case, see paragraph below), Mrs. Cole would have registered him as "Tom Marvolo Riddle" as it was his mother's dying wish to her. When Dumbledore arrives at the orphanage for the first time, he refers to him as "Tom Riddle". If Tom wasn't his actual name, how on earth would Dumbledore know everybody called him that before actually meeting him or anyone who lived with him? Why wouldn't he say he wanted to talk with "Tommy Riddle"? For all Dumbledore knew at that point, the other orphans could call him that. No, Dumbledore is on official Hogwarts business, and while doing so, he wouldn't (and couldn't!) refer to students using nicknames he would not even know that applied to Tom. Thus, logically, he referred to Riddle by his true, actual name; Tom Riddle. Besides, the whole point of Dumbledore (and later Harry, in Deathly Hallows) repeatedly treating Voldemort as "Tom" when speaking to him, is to show that no nickname (like Voldemort or You-Know-Who) can hide who he is and who he was. It would be self-defeating for them to deliberately not call him by the name he adopted late in his life, just to call him by a nickname and not his real name.

Tom Riddle Sr. is never referred to as "Thomas", nor as Tom Riddle I (or II, whatever). In fact, Dumbledore (who does definitely know Voldemort was born to Tom Riddle) specifically refers to him like Tom Riddle Sr:

"Yes, that was Tom Riddle senior, the handsome Muggle who used to go riding past the Gaunt cottage and for whom Merope Gaunt cherished a secret, burning passion."

—Dumbledore, chapter 10, Half-Blood Prince

You say the Riddles might have been buried under the names they were best known as. Ok. Your evidence being? There is absolutely zero evidence in canon to even suggest that is true. As such, we mustn't presume he ("daddy Riddle") was actually called "Thomas" just because he might. That would be preposterous: next thing we would be doing is changing all references of a "Harry Potter" to a "Harold Potter", based on the blatant speculation "Harry" just might be the diminutive form of Harold.

"As I previously pointed out, Voldemort may have only used "Tom Marvolo Riddle" as it made the perfectly neat anagram of "I am Lord Voldemort"". Oh please. This may be the most far-fetched of your reasonings and does not actually prove anything. With "Thomas" he could make up an entirely different alias, after all "Voldemort" isn't a real word at all. For all we know he could have liked "I am Lord Vohldesmorta". Seth Cooperowl post! 01:14, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Bumping this as you seem to need a reminder that Voldemort's given name is Tom, not Thomas. -Shorty1982 02:52, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. Adding all of that information in parenthesis completely messeses up the formatting of the infobox and there is no need to add the same categories multiple times. ProfessorTofty

I know this is a very late reply, but I'd just like to point out that adding multiple duplicate categories is a known bug of the visual editor, not necessarily deliberate vandalism; one reason why I recommend that people always use the source editor. — RobertATfm (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Trio article

The Trio article is a disambiguation page for the popular fanon term to refer to the three main characters of the series. It is NOT a listing of main characters, so no one else belongs on that page. The term Quartet is not in popular fan use. 1337star (Owl Post) 19:37, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Twice recently (on the Tom Riddle page) you have added information (since reverted) which has included a needless "span" container. I've seen this happen so often (with different users on multiple wikis) that I'm sure it's another bug in the visual editor. What I'm saying is, be more careful with your edits, and switch to the source editor if possible. — RobertATfm (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Tom Riddle

Other's comments on talk pages are not to be edited unless under very specific circumstances (censoring profanity, fixing poor formatting for clarity or to fix a broken page, removing purely off-topic comments, etc.), even if they contain poor spelling or grammar or state incorrect information. Unlike main articles, which are a collaborative venture, one's comment on a talk page is indeed their own. Additionally, talk page archives are not to be edited at all for any reason; that's why they are called "archives". 1337star(Drop me a line!) 17:20, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tags

Hi there! Just figured I'd let you know, but deletion tags aren't to be removed. If you feel the page shouldn't be deleted, you should go to the talk page for the candidates for deletion and give your reasoning for why you think the article should stay. There's already a heading for "Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes" if you want to leave an additional message. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:02, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Thomas "Tom" Marvolo Riddle's/Voldemort's Horcruxes

Here. I don't have that kind of privileges. MinorStoop 07:07, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

On a second thought, the original disagreement is mine, so, perhaps, I should elaborate on that. It is always difficult to create a major new page when one is already existing. If you need to enter new information or a new take on already existing information, it is easier to modify the page that already exists rather than creating a new one. MinorStoop 07:25, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Your edits

Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. MinorStoop 06:17, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

1st point: English has that wonderful feature, that is is short and concise - "and" is generally better than "as well as".

2nd point: "Tom Riddle's horcruxes" has been deemed redundant in the presence of "Horcruxes".

Antler-locking

Jdogno, we've locked antlers and neither of us is willing to back down. Neither you nor I particularly care about the other's opinion and susceptibility; we're never going to manage our disagreement on our own.

Okay, but you have to do the same: keep your hands off the keyboard that is. "Neither you nor I particularly care about the other's opinion and susceptibility; we're never going to manage our disagreement on our own.": It's not that I don't care about your opinion, it's just that If you feel I am wrong I want to know why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdogno7 (talk • contribs).

Riddle's horcruxes we know.

"And"/"as well as" - as I already wrote (or at least, in my eyes, implied in what I wrote) the shorter expression is to be preferred to the longer one. In the sentences you've been modifying (essentially short lists) "as well as" appears to imply an emphasis on the last element that does not seem particularly warranted; the last element does not feel more important than the others. Those pages have been around, literally, for years, with the "and" diction and it worked fine. It's probably worth starting a thread in the forums (check in the help pages on how to do that) about it.

"Anti-semitic"/"anti-hewish" - the main objection is that after 100+ years in which "anti-semitic" has been used as a stand-in for "anti-jewish" (whatever), the terms have become synonyms. It might be that it will include also the attitude to middle eastern muslims, given today's strained international relationships between some of the muslim countries and the rest of the world, but I haven't yet felt it happen. Given the loaded meaning of the word, it's probably best to start a discussion on the talk page of "Pure Blood supremacy" and get a consensus on what term to use.

There's an instruction, somewhere in the policy pages (under Community), indicating that major changes/loaded disagreements are to be brought to talk pages - it's a pity I tend to forget about it. MinorStoop 09:04, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "loaded" is the wrong term - but since "antisemitism" denotes a situation of prejudice, persecution and other unfriendlinesses targeted at a group of people, it prompts strong emotions, heated exchanges and so on. Having a discussion on what word to use would provide a, hopefully(!) calmer, way to reach a consensus and a justification of the term ultimately in use. MinorStoop 09:18, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Redundant categories

Jdogno, you've created three categories "fred and George's intentions", "Spells invented by F&G" and "Magic invented by F&G". Way too many, when one is more than enough. MinorStoop

That's the reason why I tagged two of them for deletion. This wiki, in my opinion, is bogged down by too much fine details: I'd please my own feelings if I can manage to avoid a few of them... MinorStoop 06:54, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

What are you specifically referring to by fine details? What is wrong with them?
Jdogno7 (talk) 06:57, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

There's a number of pages "Unideintifie boy", "unideintified girl", etc, that serve to no purpose that I can see, for example. Categories such as yours, which indicate essentially the same things without a clearly defined reason for them - one, the most general, is more than enough. MinorStoop 07:05, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

A different way of using old things and the creation of somethin new are different, I'll give you that, but it introduces a complication I'd like to avoid - "Keep it simple", that is. If one is in doubt "Spell by F&G"? "Magic by F&G"? OK, an "Invention by F&G"! It's easier. MinorStoop 07:13, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to look it all over soon. Just give me some time to finish up though.

Sorry for some reason I couldn't get on to the revision history for the article. That's been happening on other articles on the wiki as well. Sorry. Jdogno7 (talk) 03:55, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry! I learned how to fix and I already did myself. Thank you for have tried and forgive me for the trouble. Andre G. Dias (talk) 00:25, March 29, 2014 (Brazil)

Basis of reasoning

I don't understand why you keep complicating things here by moving and trying to rename pages. Could you not check first to see if the target page already exists as a redirect? Most if not all of the things you're suggesting have been discussed here at some point, and a consensus reached by the community as a whole. This site more than most on Wikia has provoked almost endless, highly detailed debate in arriving at the vast majority of its page titles, categories etc.. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 07:09, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

I did check and those that didn't exist as a redirect, I created as redirects.

Surely "and" is equivalent to "as well as"? "A and B" means "both of these", as compared to "A or B" meaning "one (or both) of these" or "either A or B" meaning "one (not both) of these". — RobertATfm (talk) 15:24, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. "And" indicates that the last term of a list (two, three or as many as you wish) is a member of the list, no questions asked. "Harry, Hermione and Ron" belong all to the trio. "As well as" indicates that the last term of the list was not recognized as a list member. "Harry, Hermione, as well as Ron are brainy." - Ron is not generally recognized as having a brain, nor is he often shown using it.

Second point. "And" is an invisible particle - you can use as many as you want in a sentence and not notice. "As well as", on the contrary, is very visible - you'd better use it only when needful - not very often. MinorStoop 17:38, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

Seeming crusade

Your constant insertion of 'as well as' where in the majority of cases it doesn't belong is getting extremely tiresome. As far as I can tell, you have been reprimanded and even blocked on other wikis for this exact same tendency. Could you please stop making this pointless and frankly irritating, not to mention incorrect, adjustment? {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 04:47, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

"Your constant insertion of 'as well as' where in the majority of cases it doesn't belong is getting extremely tiresome.": I wouldn't put it there if it didn't belong.

"As far as I can tell, you have been reprimanded and even blocked on other wikis for this exact same tendency.": Which ones would that be?

"Could you please stop making this pointless and frankly irritating, not to mention incorrect, adjustment?": It is not pointless or incorrect.

The grammar requires a restructuring of many lexical forms to conform with the adjustment to 'as well as' from 'and', a change which you have consistently failed to make. Therefore what you have done is frequently incorrect. One example is your juxtaposition "including the death of both her sister, Lily, as well as her brother-in-law, James", which would grammatically require at least a third party.

Since you obviously don't know when 'as well as' should and shouldn't be used, and are consistently irking other users, might you not consider rethinking your policy and approach? {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 04:58, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

"The grammar requires a restructuring of many lexical forms to conform with the adjustment to 'as well as' from 'and', a change which you have consistently failed to make. Therefore what you have done is frequently incorrect.": What other examples? I am just trying to understand.

"The wikis - Digimon and DCDatabase.": The Digimon wiki has a problem with explaining what is wrong to its users.

I think Minor Stoop's explanation above of the grammatical difference between "and" and "as well as" is quite clear. Personally I usually prefer "and" simply because it is shorter, but would use "as well as" if it reads better and conforms to the grammatical rules for such use — but not if it just reads better. ("But" is another conjunction of which one should be wary; although functionally and logically equivalent to "and", it is only grammatically correct if the part after the "but" is negative.) — RobertATfm (talk) 12:01, April 25, 2014‎ (UTC)

I am using it where it "conforms to the grammatical rules for such use ".

Not according to Minor Stoop or Jiskran, you aren't. Also, I have read your Digimon wiki talk page (a horrendous read) and it would appear from that that your grasp of grammar generally (amongst other things) is poor. — RobertATfm (talk) 12:34, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

So Minor Stoop and Jiskran are always right about everything! What was so terrible about my Digimon wiki talk page? What do you mean by that my grasp of grammar "amongst other things" is poor?

You are (I suspect wilfully, given your track record of vandalism/trolling/edit warring across multiple wikis) misinterpreting what I said. I am not claiming that the other two are "always right about everything" (what a nonsensical claim, neither of them are God as far as I know); what I was actually pointing out is that, although there is no such thing as "safety in numbers" (any number of people can very easily be wrong) there is such a thing as "balance of probability"; if (to take the present case, and referring only to this talk page) three people say A whilst only one says B, in the absence of any other evidence A is far more likely than B. You can claim all you like that you have a good grasp of grammar, but doing so won't make it true, especially since it's not only people on this wiki who are saying that your grammar stinks. As for "what's so terrible about your Digimon wiki talk page", it speaks for itself, especially the multiple times where it says you have been banned from that wiki for various offences, the last time being permanent.

To my mind you are in serious denial about the mistakes that you make, hence are incapable of learning from them and becoming a useful wiki editor. — RobertATfm (talk) 16:48, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

I only got banned on the Digimon wiki multiple times because the ones who banned me didn't explain what was wrong until they actually banned me!

I am not in serious denial about anything. I simply have a different point of view to certain other people. I cam capable of learning from mistakes that I recognize as mistakes (which do happen).

Seeming crusade, part 2

Per HPW:CIFG, excessively detailed familial relationships in infoboxes are not allowed.

In order for you to usefully contribute to this wiki, I'll recommend you to: a) familarize yourself with this wiki's policies and apply it; 2) reconsider and modify your attitude about what is correct and useful and/or what incorrect and/or useless. Otherwise, you might (and possibly will) be blocked from editing HP wiki. MinorStoop 05:49, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Warning: Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages, you will be blocked from editing the Harry Potter Wiki.

Jdogno, check the goddamn policy; it's all written in there, including the answers you claim you're never given to your questions. MinorStoop 06:32, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice there is a NOTABILITY clause. Dudley's wife is NEVER MENTIONED in the books - the only notable relationships of hers, if any, are to his husband and children. MinorStoop 06:35, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I've read the policy. It needs amending. Including the NOTABLITY CALUSE.

Jdogno, on the character infobox guidelines talk page, Seth Cooper has explained why the number of relationships in an infobox is to be limited - there are too many characters, related in too many ways, to list them all. Which explains also the notability clause; you can't really justify the inclusion of the wife of an Nth cousin X times removed, unless she has been instrumental to an important event in the story. Which Dudley Dursley's wife hasn't been, for example: in the series Dudley's marriage hasn't even been _mentioned_ - we know about it from, I think, Pottermore, if this site's sources are anything to go by.

Must say that he did a better job than I could have, given he wasn't involved in our disagreement. MinorStoop 13:59, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

"there are too many characters, related in too many ways, to list them all.": That's just a lame excuse for laziness.

"you can't really justify the inclusion of the wife of an Nth cousin X times removed": Family is Family.

"Family is family" — but being part of the family of a notable character does not itself confer notability. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise this wiki would get bogged down in masses of tedious and irrelevant detail. I recently deleted from the Beatles wiki, a trivia item on the ground that it was irrelevant; "Paul McCartney's wife" is a Beatle person, but "obscure relative of Paul McCartney's wife whom nobody outside her family has heard of" is not. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:31, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

"but being part of the family of a notable character does not itself confer notability.": This is about family relations not how notable a character is in the story.

"The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise this wiki would get bogged down in masses of tedious and irrelevant detail.": How is any of this tedious or irrelevant?

" I recently deleted from the Beatles wiki, a trivia item on the ground that it was irrelevant; "Paul McCartney's wife" is a Beatle person, but "obscure relative of Paul McCartney's wife whom nobody outside her family has heard of" is not.": How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

"This is [...] not [about] how notable a character is". Wrong — any well-run wiki is all about notability, otherwise (as I said) it would quickly degenerate from the "Harry Potter" (or whatever) wiki to the "random rubbish wiki".

" How is any of this tedious or irrelevant?" See the paragraph above.

"How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?" Because it's an example of why notability is of prime importance. Again, see the first paragraph of this reply.

I have been informed that you probably suffer from Asperger's and thus can't help what you're doing. To my mind this is no excuse (quite apart from the fact that I myself suffer from Asperger's, so I know what it's about); if you cannot behave in a way acceptable to the users of this wiki, then you're not competent to be editing this wiki and should refrain (or be blocked) from doing so; whether or not it's your fault that you behave that way is irrelevant to the issue of competence. This is a wiki, not a clinic. — RobertATfm (talk) 11:33, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Who told you that I may or may not have Asperger's out of curiosity? "if you cannot behave in a way acceptable to the users of this wiki,": What is that supposed to mean? "This is a wiki, not a clinic.": I am perfectly aware of that.

It's not "random rubbish": It's true fact based on what has already been established. Maybe we disagree about what is notable worthy? Maybe what's tedious or irrelevant to you is not so to others, ever consider that? Why is notability necessarily of prime importance?

Trying to clarify

As we seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion, I thought I would write down what I know of 'and' 'as well as' and see if that helped to explain to you some of my difficulty with your usage. User:Jiskran/Sandbox {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 10:03, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it further clarifies (for me anyway) the exact difference. Such a pity that it's probably wasted on J-Drongo. — RobertATfm (talk) 20:41, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Ultimate extrapolation

To carry your logic about displayed relationships on a page to its complete form, at the very least every single Pureblood and character known to be directly related to a Pureblood would have to have the entirety of the interrelated thicket of Pureblood families appear on their page. This flood of data would render the search for almost any kind of meaning useless, as we as being a Herculean task in itself, to attempt to ensure that each and every one of those hundreds of relationships per character were correctly labelled. Is this seriously what you are advocating? If not, then it becomes a simple matter of degree, and the majority of users here - in what is for these purposes essentially a democratic environment - have decided they do not require more than two generations, as a generality, per page. If this information is correct, those adequately motivated can still track more distant links simply by looking at a few more intervening pages. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 09:28, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Haven't really followed the detail; too many characters and too many relationships among them. Anyway, the situation is always the same; the proper place for the complete family tree is in the family article; in the infoboxes only the most relevant and notable relationships. MinorStoop 09:33, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

"If this information is correct, those adequately motivated can still track more distant links simply by looking at a few more intervening pages.": What do you mean by "Intervening Pages"?

"Is this seriously what you are advocating?": As I explained on the talk page for the Character Infobox Guidelines, No. I am merely stating put relationships that can be specifically described rather than some vague relative. As I explained with the example of the Malfoy Family, at most I would list Abraxas Malfoy as the father-in-law of Narcissa and the grandfather-in-law of Astoria. On the other hand: Septimus Malfoy, Brutus Malfoy, Lucius Malfoy I, Nicholas Malfoy and Armand Malfoy (Abraxas' ancestors from most recent to most distant) are not clearly defined how they are ancestors of Abraxas Malfoy and his descendants. Therefore there is no need to list them as relatives of in-laws i.e. Narcissa (Lucius II's wife) and Astoria (Draco's wife).

Anyone can easily discover that you have been blocked from the DC Database and Digimon wikis. Wikia staff or VSTF could if they were so inclined tell us of any others there may be. — RobertATfm (talk) 02:53, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

":A cursory search shows that you have been blocked twice on the MegaMan Knowledge Base; as Jdogn07 and as KillerBird.": My friend was merely trying to appeal for me but the one to whom he sent my appeal, paranoidly overreacted and so we never tried that ever again.

RE:Slightly annoying

"that you find Jdogno slightly annoying": I'm not sure if you didn't bother reading properly or if you misunderstood, but either way, I was stating that it was pretty clear MinorStoop is aggravated by your editing behaviour: just look at the editing comments/talk page notes! I personally don't have any problems with you at all so far. You wouldn't win "Hunnie Bunn's Favourite Editor of All Time" award, but you seem pretty chill. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:30, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

"I understand that you find Jdogno slightly annoying,...": The fact that you said "I understand" implies you agreed.

"I personally don't have any problems with you at all so far. You wouldn't win "Hunnie Bunn's Favourite Editor of All Time" award, but you seem pretty chill.": Not that I am desperate to win but why wouldn't I? Is there something about me that bothers you?

Firstly, saying "I understand" by no means indicates my agreement or disagreement with an opinion being stated. It simply means that it is clear to me what is being stated, whether or not I disagree.

No, there isn't anything about you that bothers me - at least, right now, no. The fact that you've done nothing but jump to conclusions about the things I've written firstly on another user's talk page then on your own is mildly upsetting, but that upset is not directed towards you, rather towards me, for my lack of expressing things in a way that everyone understands.

The reason you wouldn't win "Hunnie Bunn's Favourite Editor of All Time" award is primarily because (sarcasm and joking inbound, so beware :P) I am my favourite editor of all time, I being very vain and self-centred.

Please, stop assuming that everything I say is an attempt to subtly insult you. Trust me, if I ever do reach a point where I feel the need to insult you whether on your talk page or someone else's, then I shall inform you, and will be quite open about it. For now, let's just be friends. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 10:38, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't get involved, but I have read over both sides of the conversation and I have only one thing to say:
Jdogno, would you rather have a) an infobox full of 70+ people that is longer than the page or b ) an infobox that shows only the closest relatives (parents, grandparents, siblings, wife, in-laws, grandchildren, nieces/nephews)? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:32, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

One, you reply on my talk page, so I know you've replied and can reply in return.
Two, for this wiki, the in-laws included are mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (if applicable) and sister-in-law (if applicable); two that can also be in included - if known and appropriate - are grandmother-in-law and grandfather-in-law. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:32, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

If we included everyone - as they are so closely related - then the infoboxes would be longer than the information itself! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:12, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Well...

No, shit involves bad grammar problems - which I've seen from you on the Smallville wiki and the Digimon wiki - edit warring - which I've seen from you here on the Tom Riddle Page - and continual arguing, which I have seen on here too!
Yes, you can have opinions, but you must know when to back down and end the argument when you are wrong.
Also, you do not need to keep copying the stuff I write. Write JUST your reply on my talk page otherwise it makes things look cluttered.
Also, for future reference, if I say something on another wiki, please speak to me about it on there, not here. This is not the place as this is a different wiki. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:18, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring over "Voldemort" or "Lord Voldemort". You may be defending your viewpoint, but when it becomes arguing - and makes you wrong - then you back down. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:43, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

It is plain and clear what I mean; if you cannot understand that, then that is your problem, not mine - it made absolute, clear and complete sense. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:13, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Fine let's go over this slowly, so that we can both be certain. "The edit warring over "Voldemort" or "Lord Voldemort".": Is that about using either Lord Voldemort or Voldemort on its own when referring to the character? "You may be defending your viewpoint, but when it becomes arguing...": What do you mean by becomes arguing? "- and makes you wrong..:" What makes me wrong? What do you mean by that? "- then you back down.": Back down from what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdogno7 (talk • contribs).

Yes, the edit warring was over "Voldemort" or "Lord Voldemort."
Something becomes arguing when a consensus (a point) has been reached and you keep pushing your point.
Arguing, when a point/consensus has been reached, makes you wrong.
If you are wrong, you back down from the argument and apologize. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:14, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

A consensus had been reached over the name; more said one thing that another, making that the consensus, so you were arguing and wrong and needed to back down.

Also, stop making new headings on my talk page. Just add it to the bottom and sign your name. I will ignore you if you keep cluttering up my talk page. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:25, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Re:Discussion

"Why is it too difficult to fully discuss anything of dispute that might arise?"

Your stubborn conviction of being always right. Your dogheaded unwillingness to follow a wiki's guidelines when you disagree with them. Your quick antagonization of other people on a wiki, possibly more familiar with it than you are. Your intractable inability to let go. In a nutshell: *YOU*.

Said that, do not bother to contact me again - I have nothing more to say to you. MinorStoop 08:33, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Risk

You might want to look very carefully at Harry_Potter_Wiki:Talk_Page_Policy before you decide unilaterally that you're going to remove elements from here. It might be safer to get an Admin's agreement beforehand that the content is unacceptable. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 06:36, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Since my words don't get through

I have simply reported your need to insert 'as well as' where it doesn't belong to the Admins, and left the matter in their hands. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 23:57, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

And/As well as

For the umpteenth time, can you please cool it with changing 'and' to 'as well as'? It's hard to explain any clearer than it already has that 'and' is preferable; in a group of items, your edit appears to include the final item as an afterthought, whereas 'and' includes them all together as one group. Thanks. --Cubs Fan(Talk to me) 00:42, October 16, 2014 (UTC)